Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#111

Post by talmand »

yardie wrote: post #101
Whitespace wrote: post #29

It seems that almost all patent troll cases are tried in the East District of Texas because that district had strongly favored plaintiffs. I'm then curious: if a US company refused to do business with Texas citizens -- citing an inhospitable litigation environment or some such -- could they still be brought to court in EDTX? Continuing the thought experiment, what if companies continued to do business but added a sur…

As a counterpoint because EDTX has been used so heavily as a patent litigation court their infrastructure is uniquely tailored to handle software patent litigation. By extension the jury is also more familiar with the complexities and details of software patents. So your choice is choosing a jury in a district that is more familiar with technology, software, and patents or choosing a jury in a district who were dumb…

Based on many of the cases that have come from there, I would state that they are no more familiar with technology, software, and patents then any other district. It's just that for some reason or another they are pro-plaintiff in these cases. The articles suggests the possible cause of that lay in the judges themselves since Newegg was apparently not allowed to argue to invalidate the patents in the first place, which was stupid. A higher court agreed and reversed the decision so I fail to see how the district's supposed familiarity with such things were a benefit to anyone.

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#112

Post by talmand »

bstpierre wrote: post #76
Whitespace wrote: post #29

It seems that almost all patent troll cases are tried in the East District of Texas because that district had strongly favored plaintiffs. I'm then curious: if a US company refused to do business with Texas citizens -- citing an inhospitable litigation environment or some such -- could they still be brought to court in EDTX? Continuing the thought experiment, what if companies continued to do business but added a sur…

It's a Federal court -- you can't avoid jurisdiction just by not doing business in TX. My understanding is that it's the trolls that open offices in Tyler just so that they can file the suit in that district. I.e. the plaintiff is dragging the defendant into TX, and the defendant can't avoid that court.

Yes, there's been a few reports where someone will investigate the "offices" of the patent troll and it becomes quite clear that no one is actually there. They are just renting the door for the address, more or less. I believe rental properties catering to this is a booming business in a few districts across the US.

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#113

Post by talmand »

linuxhansl wrote: post #68

Assuming Soverain does to have pay back prior settlements it was probably still a very lucrative business in extortion. Is there a legal way to make them pay for their prior litigation? Or to force them to pay Neweggs legal fees?

I would imagine any monies that Soverain had collected have already been dispersed to benefactors and is untouchable. Newegg could possibly sue to get legal fees back but why bother? There's probably no money to be had.

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#114

Post by talmand »

Friedduck wrote: post #75

Why hasn't there been a boycott of businesses in the East Texas district where all these judgments originate? Or at least some social action against Texas to try to shame them into behaving responsibly? Could it gain traction?

So, you wish to punish an entire region of people because of the actions of a few?

Seems reasonable.

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#115

Post by caseysoftware »

hessenwolf wrote: post #107
sounds wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without assuming Fred Chang or his associates share my views, in my position I'd be willing to bet the whole company on a principled stand like this. In other words, I don't always take the game theoretic rational local maximum – lots of business is like that. If for my company to survive I must pay "rent" to a patent troll, taking a stand against them would be my first choice. (Obviously this only works in a positio…

Sounds nice, but I am sure there would be some employees floating around with families and mortgages and bills that work hard and honestly, that you might feel a bit beholden to, no?

"Go Big or Go Home" is all well and good when you're the only person.. but I think you're right. Once there are a few or dozens or hundreds of people involved, hopefully it changes the decision making process.

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#116

Post by SageRaven »

waqf wrote: post #37
arbuge wrote: post #9

Comparing patent trolls to bacteria would be an unforgivable and entirely unwarranted insult to bacteria everywhere. Even the plague bacterium deserves better. We need to see alot more of this happening - hopefully this will show people there is another way to go, i.e. never ever settle with a patent troll, no matter how scary the alternative may seem to be. 3 patents invalidated but thousands to go. It is disgusting…

You will never win by directing your anger at the people who are just responding to the incentives provided by the system.

Giving your anger a focal point can be productive, as it may inspire you to promote change.

Since IP lawsuits entered my field of awareness, starting with the Napster Trial, I've always wanted to set up a web site called "idancedonyourgrave.com" (or something with a similar sentiment). Morbid, but I want user-submitted pics of people actually dancing on the graves of people who have damaged our society through policy and abuse of the system.

My current candidates are: Lars Ulrich (Metallica, figurehead of the Napster lawsuit), Jack Valenti (former president of the MPAA -- hey, he's dead now, too!), Hillary Rosen (former president of the RIAA), and now I'll add Katherine Wolanyk (from the article, a co-founder of Soverain, patent troll).

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#117

Post by rayiner »

bstpierre wrote: post #76
Whitespace wrote: post #29

It seems that almost all patent troll cases are tried in the East District of Texas because that district had strongly favored plaintiffs. I'm then curious: if a US company refused to do business with Texas citizens -- citing an inhospitable litigation environment or some such -- could they still be brought to court in EDTX? Continuing the thought experiment, what if companies continued to do business but added a sur…

It's a Federal court -- you can't avoid jurisdiction just by not doing business in TX. My understanding is that it's the trolls that open offices in Tyler just so that they can file the suit in that district. I.e. the plaintiff is dragging the defendant into TX, and the defendant can't avoid that court.

Any court, federal or otherwise, has to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction#Principle...). The rules are somewhat complex, but it should at least theoretically be possible to avoid being hauled into court in EDTX by not doing business there, blocking customers from there, etc.

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#118

Post by vonmoltke »

fpgeek wrote: post #91
DigitalJack wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compuserve's prior art was in 1984, so if they had patents on it, they'd have expired in 2004. I take your point though. Can you imagine having to pay royalties to Compuserve over a shopping cart in 2003?

Not necessarily. 20 years from application only just became the law. Compuserve would have been working under 17 years from grant. And, IIRC, they could have been evil and kept filing follow-on claims to delay grant until a time they though was advantageous (e.g. waiting until after Amazon became big). You'd think that's crazy, but the universal search patent Apple is bedeviling Android with has a priority date that…

> 20 years from application only just became the law.

It became effective June 8, 1995: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html#sect270...

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#119

Post by saalweachter »

caseysoftware wrote: post #115
hessenwolf wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds nice, but I am sure there would be some employees floating around with families and mortgages and bills that work hard and honestly, that you might feel a bit beholden to, no?

"Go Big or Go Home" is all well and good when you're the only person.. but I think you're right. Once there are a few or dozens or hundreds of people involved, hopefully it changes the decision making process.

If your principles aren't worth your friends and family starving, what are they worth?

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#120

Post by bjhoops1 »

kissickas wrote: post #5

Great news. I was surprised to read that in a way similar to the Apple case against Samsung, the judge (in the Apple case, it was the foreman) told the jury to completely ignore the validity of the patents in District Court. It still makes absolutely no sense to me, so if someone could fill me in I would appreciate it. I read that the judge said jurors would be confused... is this normal in any other type of case? No…

Judge: "Let's start with the assumption that O.J. did in fact murder his wife. Now the question for the jury is how badly did he murder her?"
Post reply on HN